Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
McLeod, S. (2007). Obedience to Authority
McLeod, S. (2007). Obedience to Authority
McLeod, S. (2007). Obedience to Authority
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: McLeod, S. (2007). Obedience to Authority
The Milgram Experiment
A lesson in depravity, peer pressure, and the power of authority
The aftermath of the Holocaust and the events leading up to World War
II, the world was stunned with the happenings in Nazi German and their
acquired surrounding territories that came out during the Eichmann
Trials. Eichmann, a high ranking official of the Nazi Party, was on
trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The questions is,
"Could it be that Eichmann, and his million accomplices in the
Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all
accomplices?"
Stanley Milgram answered the call to this problem by performing a
series of studies on the Obedience to Authority. Milgram's work began
at Harvard where he was working towards his Ph.D. The experiments on
which his initial research was based were done at Yale from 1961-1962.
In response to a newspaper ad offering $4.50 for one hour's work, an
individual turns up to take part in a Psychology experiment
investigating memory and learning. He is introduced to a stern looking
experimenter in a white coat and a rather pleasant and friendly
co-subject. The experimenter explains that the experiment will look
into the role of punishment in learning, and that one will be the
"teacher" and one will be the "learner." Lots are drawn to determine
roles, and it is decided that the individual who answered the ad will
become the "teacher."
[IMAGE]Your co-subject is taken to a room where he is strapped in a
chair to prevent movement and an electrode is placed on his arm. Next,
the "teacher" is taken to an adjoining room which contains a
generator. The "teacher" is instructed to read a list of two word
pairs and ask the "learner" to read them back. If the "learner" gets
the answer correct, then they move on to the next word. If the answer
is incorrect, the "teacher" is supposed to shock the "learner"
starting at 15 volts.
The generator has 30 switches in 15 volt increments, each is labeled
In the Article by Philip Meyer’s “If Hitler Asked You to Electrocute a Stranger, Would You? Probably” discusses the Milgram experiment, and the readiness to obey authority without question.
In Lauren Slater’s book Opening Skinner’s Box, the second chapter “Obscura” discusses Stanley Milgram, one of the most influential social psychologists. Milgram created an experiment which would show just how far one would go when obeying instructions from an authoritative figure, even if it meant harming another person while doing so. The purpose of this experiment was to find justifications for what the Nazi’s did during the Holocaust. However, the experiment showed much more than the sociological reasoning behind the acts of genocide. It showed just how much we humans are capable of.
Both were told that they would be involved in a study that tests the effects of punishment on learning. The learner was strapped into a chair that resembled a miniature electric chair, and was told he would have to learn a small list of word pairs. For each incorrect answer, he would be given electric shocks of increasing intensity ranging from 15 to 450 volts. The experimenter informed the teacher that his job was to administer the shocks. The experimenter's job was to oversee that the experiment was completed.
Dalrymple states that he obeyed his superior because she was more knowledgeable over her job (256). The Milgram experiment demonstrates how ordinary people act towards authority in certain situations. Dalrymple accurately utilizes that point by describing when a boy is turned in for trying to steal a car and then the parents proceed to yell at the guards. The guards began to stop reporting kids because they wanted to avoid the conflict all together (257). Parker agrees with Dalrymple by explicating that the experimenter alludes to conflict when the teacher wants to discontinue the experiment, but stumbles to rebel when dictated to continue (238). Parker’s solution is to offer a button for the teachers to press when they are no longer able to continue the experiment (238).
At first Milgram believed that the idea of obedience under Hitler during the Third Reich was appalling. He was not satisfied believing that all humans were like this. Instead, he sought to prove that the obedience was in the German gene pool, not the human one. To test this, Milgram staged an artificial laboratory "dungeon" in which ordinary citizens, whom he hired at $4.50 for the experiment, would come down and be required to deliver an electric shock of increasing intensity to another individual for failing to answer a preset list of questions. Meyer describes the object of the experiment "is to find the shock level at which you disobey the experimenter and refuse to pull the switch" (Meyer 241). Here, the author is paving the way into your mind by introducing the idea of reluctance and doubt within the reader. By this point in the essay, one is probably thinking to themselves, "Not me. I wouldn't pull the switch even once." In actuality, the results of the experiment contradict this forerunning belief.
In Milgram's opinion the teachers continued because they were told they were not responsible for whatever happens to the learner, he states “Experimenter: i'm responsible for anything that happens to him ( Milgram 81).” Milgram says, “Teachers were the ones inflicting pain but still did not feel responsible for their act ( Milgram 83).” Also Milgram says “ they often liked the feeling they get from pleasing the experimenter (Milgram 86).” However Baumrind believes that the teachers only followed orders because they trusted to experimenter. Baumrind states, “The subject has the right to expect that the Psychologist with whom he is interacting has some concern for his welfare, and the personal attributes and professional skill to express his good will effectively ( Baumrind 94).” When Baumrind tells the readers this she means that she thinks the teachers believe that that the experimenter would not let anything bad happen to the
In his article, he provides excerpts from his experiment to solidify his concepts. For example, Gretchen Brandt continuously askes if the "Student" is ok; however, when the "Experimenter" says to continue, she does so but not without saying she "...doesn 't want to be responsible for anything happening to him" (80). Another example Milgram provides is of a man by the name Fred Prozi. Prozi proceeds through the entire experiment. That is, until he runs out of word pairs.
In her excerpt, Baumrind discusses the potential dangers of the aftereffects on the participants of the experiment. On many occasions she suggests that these people are subjects of a cruel and unethical experiment, and suffer from harm to their self-image and emotional disruption (227). She also calls Milgram’s experiment a “game” (Baumrind 225); this illustrates her negative outtake on the experiment which is seen throughout the article. On the contrary, Parker discusses the aftereffects on Milgram himself. He expresses how the experiment, although it shows light to what extent of obedience a person may travel, ruined Milgram’s reputation. Parker also cites many notable authors and psychologists and their reactions to Milgram’s experiment. Despite their differences, Baumrind and Parker are able to find common ground on a few issues concerning the Milgr...
Milgram’s experiment started shortly after the trial of Adolf Eichmann began. Adolf Eichmann was a Nazi who tortured many Jews during the Holocaust, and had others under his hand do whatever he told them to do. Milgram decided to plan a study to merely see if the followers of E...
The results showed that the naming number tasks had the smallest reaction time compared to all the other. The incongruent counting task had the longest reaction time out of the other three tasks. The incongruence in the stimulus in the incongruent counting task created similar effects as the Stroop phenomenon. The hypothesis that the reaction time would be larger in the incongruent counting task was supported in this experiment, as well as the prediction that the congruent counting task will in fact have a lower reaction time than the incongruent; due to the fact of having no interference.
The experiment performed by Stanley Milgrim at Yale University was both fascinating and thought provoking. Milgrim’s famous experiment explored “Obedience to authority.” In his experiment Milgrim explained to his students what was going to happen. He told his students that they would be the “teacher” who was going to administer a volunteered “student “a word-pairing test. Milgrim told them for every incorrect answer the “student” gave they would give a shock to the “student”. Each shock would increase in voltage after every incorrect answer. The shocks would be painful but not life threatening, he explained. They were also told an experimenter would be in the room to oversee the results of the experiment. Milgrim lead his students to believe this was an experiment to see the effect of punishment on learning and offered a sizeable $4.50 for participating in the experiment. Many students complied to participate in the experiment. Before the experiment began Milgrim asked the participants how long they thought they could administer shocks to the crying, screaming “student” before they would refuse to shock any more. Many of the participants said they would only go up to maybe 200 or 300 volts before they would stop.
In finding that people are not naturally aggressive. Milgram now alters the experiment to find out why do people act the way they do. He compiled the experiment to answer, why do people obey authority, even when the actions are against their own morals.
The “blue-bottle” experiment demonstrates a redox reaction. This is one of the most common reactions in chemistry. Redox reactions are the movement of electrons from one substance to another. The word “redox” comes from the concepts of reduction and oxidation. Reduction is the intake of an electron by an atom. Oxidation is the opposite. It is the loss of an electron by an atom. These two reactions go hand in hand because in a chemical reaction, one reaction cannot happen without the other.
...g factors such as fear of consequences for not obeying, human nature’s willingness to conform, perceived stature of authority and geographical locations. I also believe that due to most individual’s upbringings they will trust and obey anyone in an authoritative position even at the expense of their own moral judgment. I strongly believe that Stanley Milgram’s experiments were a turning point for the field of social psychology and they remind us that “ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process”. Despite these findings it is important to point out it is human nature to be empathetic, kind and good to our fellow human beings. The shock experiments reveal not blind obedience but rather contradictory ethical inclinations that lie deep inside human beings.
The first particles were sent (4) at 12 pm local time. One hour after starting up,